Any DCS World keys purchased from other sources are invalid and are simply trying to re-sell keys that are bound to other users or purchased through fraud. Such sites include Kinguin, CDExpress and G2A.

If you purchase DCS World keys from these sites, we cannot help you. We suggest you contact these sites for a refund.

I acknowledge and appreciate that the rules are not set in stone and that there is some margin of discretion. But that is not what I am complaining about. Instead, there are moderator decisions, which have left the "corridor of discretion", which the Forum Rules and Forum Warning Guidelines have around them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

In an effort to be more transparent and consistent in how forum warnings and posting suspensions are issued, we are starting new guidelines today. We hope that this will remove any mystery on this subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

Most of all, we want them to be fair, clear and accountable.

On one hand, we have rules that were interpreted in a substancial wider sense than they were documented and the resulting penalties, in their severity, were also not explainable by what was published before. Then on the other hand, there are postings that were just deleted, but no further penalties were applied - even after the tightened up rules have been communicated eventually.

This is not best judgement, this is arbitrariness. With this approach to moderation, Wags' expressed goals were clearly missed. By a long shot.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

In an effort to be more transparent and consistent in how forum warnings and posting suspensions are issued, we are starting new guidelines today. We hope that this will remove any mystery on this subject. (...) Most of all, we want them to be fair, clear and accountable.

We stressed rule 1.16 as much as we could, numerous warnings were handed out without warning points or suspensions, we even made a forum announcement about it but many continued to ignore them while others helped by reporting them. Once we started coming down hard, they have slown down considerably. Considering what is at stake with some of the info being through around, enforcement of this rule will stand, and continue as needed.

I believe the point here is that rule 1.16 was changed, repeatedly, and offenses based on the updated rule were handled in a "coming down hard" way, before people had a fair chance to realize what those changes meant. I believe in the particular case this thread is about, the penalty was dealt even before the rules were updated anywhere.

It's only now that the rule implies that even mentioning the name of a document is prohibited. That was not the case just a few weeks ago.

The nature of the rule has not changed since it started, we don't want any of these documents shared on the forums in any way. The only changes have been to spell it out more for some who have tried getting around the rule in creative ways.

If you think you have been wrongly affected by this, you can always PM me, but with 1.16, there is just no good excuse at this point, as I said, most if not all the people who have received warnings, had posts deleted or been involved in threads with posts that have been deleted without warnings previously, as we tried to do it without punishment at first. The fact that we had to start handing out warning points and suspensions only mean people chose to continue to do so.

I think the rules page still needs to be updated. The russian version of the 1.16 rule does not say anything about warnings or even bans, unlike the english version does. It just says messages will be deleted.

The Russian side is already requested to be changed, but as we all seem to do well with English, that isn't a valid point in what is being discussed here. Nothing is changing in how 1.16 is being handled, we told this to OP in PMs, in tickets, and when his buddies PM'd as well. That's final.

1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1.16 Second version

1.16 Posting images, file links, file sharing links, copying and pasting information, or referencing of military aircraft and related equipment documents, in any way, newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed, a 20% warning and 1-week suspension will be issued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1.16 Update Announcement

1.16 violations will first be 20% perma warning, 1 week off. A second violation will be another 20% perma and one month off. A third violation will be 100% warning and 1 year off. After the 1 year, your 100% warning will remain intact, and any further violations will result in a permanent ban on these forums.

That highlighted part is a substantial change.

As I understand it, even the name of a document now falls under this rule. That was not the case when the rule was first put in place. Subsequently, handing out penalties based on the updated nature of the rule, and then saying everyone on the forum had ample warning, that's... inconsistent.

We stressed rule 1.16 as much as we could, numerous warnings were handed out without warning points or suspensions, we even made a forum announcement about it but many continued to ignore them while others helped by reporting them. Once we started coming down hard, they have slown down considerably. Considering what is at stake with some of the info being through around, enforcement of this rule will stand, and continue as needed.

Your signature image shows how seriously you are not taking this.

Oh, I am taking this very serious, but you are veering off-topic here or there is a stark a difference in perception here. You keep stressing, how important rule 1.16 is, but I am not even arguing against the existence or enforcement of the rule as such!

It is about HOW enforcement of the rule 1.16 is done. There is a difference in quality when
a) linking to a downloadable document,
b) posting hardcopies or copy&pasting content, or
c) stating a document title.

The difference is, one gives direct access to the content of the document and the other is merely acknowledging that such a document exists. These are very different ways of how one could handle such documents and only one of them was subject to rule 1.16 in the beginning.

Based on that, how can one be expected to deduce the other way to be "obviously" being implied in the rule as well?

And furthermore, when eventually both ways were condensed into the new rule 1.16, you use your best judgement to come down hard on violators of the "a document exists"-faction and, within hours, "direct access granter" get a just a slight rap on their knuckles in form of a deleted posting.

I can not understand how this can not be seen as arbitrary and random. I would have thought, given the severity of the whole document sharing issue, the necessity of explicit and clear communication of what is allowed and what is not, should have been of utmost importance. That would be at least a better way to make sure, that "people are getting it" than "coming down hard" on them.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

In an effort to be more transparent and consistent in how forum warnings and posting suspensions are issued, we are starting new guidelines today. We hope that this will remove any mystery on this subject. (...) Most of all, we want them to be fair, clear and accountable.

I am sorry you are just making this about you, but unfortunately this was a very fluid and organic matter, its obvious if you paid attention to the news item that hit a short time ago that we need to make sure anyone visiting these forums knows we are doing our best to make sure we are playing by the rules. You have a 20% warning, and has a short suspension, I really don't get all the angst, but at any rate, this has been answered for you a number of times, and it won't change. As I said, if you stay clean for 6 months or so, shoot me a PM and we can remove the warning. I don't have anything else to say on this.